WirelessEye

Carrseom- I never described myself as an expert, nor am I trying to sell anything, nor is anyone else I believe. I do agree that there are "slick shoes" salesmen that do burn you, but that can be said about analog as well.

Rory/Thomas- It is true that anything can be done with code, and that both NVR's and DVR's are extensible in that fashion. However- I asked for a specific DVR that can do everything that a specific NVR can do-- not what you can modify them to do after tons of programming. I can almost bet that any DVR that is "turn-key" is not going to be able to compare to a "turn key" NVR. Just for giggles, post the best DVR you can find (I don't care about storage) and post its features.

Remember, this is something that does not need to have custom scripting done. I want to see something that is off the shelf-- as the NVR I will post will be off the shelf.

I just need to mention that if you are trying to access a server that is behind a firewall, you'll need to enable NAT and set the appropriate port.

Yes. You simply stream out the video as you encode it.

I realize that, but you can do much more as far as networking, multiple-sites, virtual matrixing, remote access, etc. on an NVR than with a DVR.

Pelco does it and I'm fairly sure GE does it as well. But the comment about HTTP isn't anywhere near correct. Unless the cameras share a common manufactor, like Vivotek and D-Link for instance, the cameras will operate in a completely differant manner. Even variations in the firmware can cause issues.

 

What your saying is akin to "All PTZs accept RS-485 so there for any DVR can talk to any PTZ with one protocol." It's not true. Software writen for Axis cameras will not function with Vivotek. Software writen for Vivotek will not fuction with Toshiba's cameras.

 

This is one of the major problems with IP cameras. There is no standard. And yet marketing people pump out "It's all on the network!" as if that means everything will talk to each other.

 

Wireless Eye, I do have to point out that every programatic feature you cite can be done in the analog side. That's the joy of software.

Pelco and GE use Bilinx? I was under the impression they used their own communication protocols. If that is the case, isn't this quite similiar to IP manufacturer A doesn't work with IP manufacturer B? Nonetheless, our NVR already has built in support for all of the manufacturers you mentioned, and a lot more, so they do all work together and on the same network. The fact that they run on different firmware and use seperate API's is completely transparent to us and our end users.

So if I understand you correctly, if I point out everything that a single (specific) NVR system can do in a list, you can site a single (specific) DVR system that can match its capabilities in every way? I'm certainly up to the challenge if you are.

It does depend on the power consumption of the 12VDC equipment and the wire gauge. With 18AWG and a 2amp peak draw (2.3 amps being the highest you should go for 18AWG), you shouldn't go beyond 38 feet as you will drop below 11VDC at anything further.

At 250ft and 18AWG with a 2amp load, you would have 5.42VDC at the end of the line.

If you are looking at power over ethernet, you are even worse off. 9 feet maximum for a 2amp load just to keep you above 11VDC.

Most 12VDC devices can operate between 11VDC-13.5VDC range.

What does the $50 cam look like at night and how long does it last?

Dont see how that can be, though I'd like to know otherwise. Milestone is $5,495.00 retail for 36 cameras, thats $10K+ for 64 cameras. Since the speed from the network wont be the same as the combo card, nor need the DSP output to compare, It would be best to compare with the GV650, but either way the Combo card is $1500 retail for 16 cameras, so thats $6,000.00. Ok another $1000 per PC x 3. $9,000 .. near the same cost.

 

Now add the $200 difference per IP Camera ( but the cost of either IP Servers or Cameras are generally much more from what I have seen), thats yet another $12,800.

 

Then lets not forget its own high bandwidth network as it depends on the network to work (CCTV does not), for 64 cameras for certain it wont just use a Linksys router, so that cost just went up even more.

 

Okay, so we need cable for the CCTV gear, well so does the IP network, and even if it is wireless, that wireless gear will no doubt be as much as or more than the CCTV cable, unless ofcourse we are talking about OEM IP and Wireless gear from Hong Kong.

Milestone/ONSSI is very expensive, no doubt about it. But at the same time you could go with D3 Data for $5,500 and put as many cameras on it as you want. So that's $9,000 for DVR based vs. $5,500 for NVR based. Granted, 64 IP cameras x $200 more expensive for each one does add up to $12,800 - $3,500 for the system difference which equals $9,300 more for the IP system.

64 cameras cannot be brought into a standard linksys by any means, however since I'm wireless all I need is an 8 port router (gigabit) < $100 to handle my access points.

The wireless/cabling debate is completely different monster. Obviously, both have their place and "their place" is whatever is the most cost effective for the situation. If doing a multi building outdoor installation, wireless is by far cheaper than trenching from building to building. If doing a multi camera, single building installation, wired is better- that I can admit. You have to realize, the service that my company provides is *specialized*. Basically we are for people that want temporary surveillance (less than 2 years) or people that have multi-facility needs where cabling isn't feasible.

Same as you, with the aide of a video decoder, which nearly any IP manufacturer sells, the DVR can use nearly any IP camera also. One thing though, the DVR can use a $50 camera, where I dont think you will ever find an IP camera or a video server for that kind of cost, besides a consumer webcam, which will not come close to matching the quality, even as low as it maybe with those $50 cameras. Not to mention we can use something as cheap in cost as the GV250 and still have the full blown geoVision software ..

Video transcoders do exist, but you are at a severe deficit of choices in manufactures from what I see (definately a fraction compared to analog to IP devices). Again, I know there are $50 cameras... but I've never seen one that I would buy, even if I did use DVR's. I don't think I've ever bought a camera under $700 to be quite honest. I did do some checking however, and found the cheapest IP camera that I could find was $249.

This reminds me of something. When I was a kid, everyone thought microwave ovens were a fad and overpriced at $500/ea. Now, almost everyone uses them and they are around $70. This is how the IP market is going.

Then why advertise that it can be done..this is my argument.

 

I hate the statement "With Ip cams you can have unlimeted cameras" and I have heard it too many times!

The systems are *claimed* to be unlimited. Obviously you cannot test unlimited claims because you will never be able to reach unlimited. It is an unobtainable number..... My argument is that a single NVR, whatever it is, can handle a lot more cameras anyway you put it, as it is not limited by how many BNC inputs you have on it. I'm sure you'll come back with a bandwidth argument, but I think you already know that is invalid.

Correct but DVR's offer this I mentioned Geovisions "Twin Server", you must rmemeber after the video is recorded a DVr can BE a NVR and do the same things over a network!

They may be able to do the same things as an NVR once the footage is recorded, but what can it do live?

No need for a controller, all Bosch PTZ's can be controlled over the coax and through software and updated through coax as well as ugrades etc, this functionality is called Bilinx!

So all Bosch PTZ's can do this, but it sounds like this is a Bosch Only feature. Since HTTP is an open standard, all IP cameras can be controlled via the same protocol.

I think you have misunderstood me, what I was saying was that with a hard wired system, the bandwisth is not a concern, becasue it is not ON the network, it can have whatever the DVR can handle becasue it is hard wired cable, with wireless and "network only" IP cams, you have to be concerned with the amount of data transfer, with a hard wired system you do not have to! As for your statement about building a NVR cheaper and with more storage, that is incorrect....My DVR can be a PC and can have the SAME box or storage that you use, so the same limits apply to me as do for you, my DVR can also record at the same frame rates, i can not comment on price, but I DOUBT your solution of NVR and buying software as well as having to use IP cams is cheaper than a DVR using analogue and in the same PC box as yours!

Who is misunderstanding who? I was pointing out that bandwidth is irrelevant if you have to worry about recording space. Perhaps if you would have fully read my post you'd notice that. Since NVR and DVR people usually only record at partial frame rates, bandwidth concerns are null and void. Also, the cost for NVR's and DVR's are about the same. Our IP PTZ's cost ~$200 more than a comparable Analog PTZ. Even if I put 64 cameras on an NVR, it would be about the same price once you take into account you'd need (4) GV-1480-16 combo cards @ $1,100/ea. That would actually cost more than the NVR software.

this is a pointless argument, your NVR can be standalone, so can mine, yours can be PC so can mine...we are succeptable to the same risks, I was not saying yours was more succeptable to crashing, it wsa you that stated yours was more stable, they are exactly the same and YES I can build mine on Windows Server if I wanted to..your point was that yours offered better redundancy becasue my DVR was fallable and that if it stopped working I loose my recordings, but so do you and the NVR and DVR can both be standalone or PC so your argument is pointless.

Perhaps it was only pointless because of the preceeding argument from you. I was simply making lemonade from lemons. Please read your post on if how you were stating that if x and y happened I'd lose all of my recordings....and get back to me.

Perhaps...but I can build a PC DVR with the same components as your NVR so where is the difference, I think it is silly for you to argue this point because anything you can build as an NVR I can build as a DVR!

I do agree though about the CPU load but my DVR can use hardware compression as well, so there is no difference ...well that is not correct..but the difference is in my advantage, because I do not have to have IP cams doing the compression that are more expensive!

In short....My CPU load can be the same as yours so I see no advantage!

But I don't have expensive hardware on my end doing the compression, so where was your advantage again? Your CPU load will be higher than mine because you will have to run Geo cards and I don't. It doesn't matter if the Geo's have onboard CPU's or not, your main CPU still has to interface....I wouldn't be surprised if the system CPU was doing most of the work.

Your original Point has changed here...the facts are

1/ If we both have an cam on an oil rig, they both get damaged!

2/ We can both stream to a raid system, but my control room software is free.

3/ The advantage I have is if your wireless system stops working I still record on the RIG and you do not!

4/ No matter how you argue, there is nothing a NVR can do in streaming that a DVR can not do as well, the only differnce is I can record at site and also OFFSITE

My point only changes to meet your new arguments:

1/ Maybe. They have explosion proof cameras.

2/ But your capture cards were not, and I don't need any.

3/ Not if your DVR gets blown up with the camera.... wouldn't they be on the same rig?

4/ You also have one more piece of equipment to be tampered with/stolen in an uncontrolled environment. I fail to see how additional risk is also a positive to the system.

You did not mention the brand you are using?

You can say what you like but the facts are that I can use any camera, you can too but you have to buy a webserver and I do not, every analogue cam works on my DVR and not every IP cam works on yours!

And I won't mention the brands either. I can use ANY camera on my system. True some are aided in the use of a video server, but at least I have the option. Ok, so now that we've established I can use any anolog camera and nearly any IP camera (I have yet to find one I can't use)-- now the next question.... what IP camera can you use with your DVR?

INCORRECT!!!!!!!!

I was unaware that you were in the same type of business I was in. Please explain. And when you explain please tell me: how many remote feeds you monitor, how many of them are located in areas where there's no power, no copper, and a ton of property to protect.

Agreed. The Sony IP cameras that have H.264 built in have beautiful quality in H.264, but are limited to 10FPS @ full resolution due to the massive processing power needed to encode, so it is a tradeoff.

My mistake, I thought that streamed video had a lot to do with CCTV and IP Video. Many of the Broadcast companies are switching to H.264 from MPEG-2 (Broadcast Quality) because they are they are nearly identical in quality and this allows them to up their resolutions to HD without increasing the video streams size. The same is true with CCTV and IP Video. Or is MPEG-4 better quality than MPEG-2 now also?

I believe your bad experiences with H.264 are related to the hardware you are using.

Then why are HD DVD, Blue-ray, BBC HD, DirecTV, Dish Network, Euro1080, ProSieben HD & Sat1 HD, ProSiebenSat.1 Media AG,

SkyHD, SVT HD, etc. are using H.264-- and not MPEG-4 or Wavelet.

Perhaps they could give you a demo so that you won't think it's all talk.

Interesting. H.264 is broadcast quality encoding. On some of our stuff, H.264 looks as good if not better than MJPEG. (Not to mention the size of the video is 1/15th of the size.)

Wow that's wierd. Why would Geo's Mpeg4 be better than H.264? The definition of H.264 is Mpeg4-10 and is dramtically better in quality and smaller in size. Perhaps Geo has encoder problems?

If it can hadle it, switch to H.264. Better video quality and less space required for storage than MPEG-4.

Incorrect, many of the DVRs that we use can be controlled and monitored from one master unit, including roll outs, updates, alive pings, health montioring and much much more. I am not sure and perhaps Thomas will explain..I have not read his post yet...but there can NOT be limited connections, even windows itself has a limit to this and your bandwisth is not going to support an unlimited number of connections all pulling traffic in different directions, you need to realize that you can not have 40 people reviewing and 20 people viewing etc, the bandwidth is SIMPLY not there to do so! This is why things like Twin server was designed for Geovision and why VCS and many other IP products recommend only a certain amount of connections.

I will have to agree with you. There cannot be an "unlimited" amount of cameras. Just like there cannot be an "unlimited" amount of servers on the internet (in theory). But just like the internet adds clusters and routing capabilities, you can do the same with a networked system. An NVR is different than a DVR. Many NVR's use a "relay server" that opens a single connection to the IP device then splits it into however many concurrent connections wish to connect to it. You are connecting multiple times to the NVR, NOT the IP camera. This allows for MANY more connections and bypasses the OEM limits on connectivity to the IP device-- and also saves a lot of bandwidth to that side of the connection.

The PTZ cameras that I use have this facility, thre are many models that also support this, ALL BOSCH and Panasonic and even I think PELCO PTZ's support this and none of these are considered "Lower Spec" I will conceded that ONLY on wireless is there advantage to PTZ becasue of the lack of a need for cable, to argue that an IP camera PTZ requires less cable is wrong becasue I could use a balun and the same cable you use cat5 to get the same result, I do recall stating that there is an advantage to IP PTZ's for transporting long distance protocol and have used many a WEB SERVER to achieve this (especially to avoid digging up airports or roadways etc)

I've used Pelco's and Bosch before, never seen anything having to do with Coax Comm. Perhaps you have to have a DVR controller to use this functionality.... Of course I'm talking about wireless... I believe I've stated that many times. I have little or no interest in running wires. Even a balun can't send streaming video over 20 miles.

It isn't...I am not saying you do.....but...most IP CCTV sales guys sprout the advantage of IP is to use the existing infrastructure of the network to save on cabling and most times that is not possible, the cost saving is lost if you have to put in more routers, switches etc etc compared to using what is existing there already.

I believe I've already agreed on this part... you can only do this on small systemsk if at all.

Better is debatable, but I am not going to argue that, nor have I ever said IP was not better....but what you said was that it can be as cost effective (I can not scroll back so if I am wrong I am sorry) but I seem to remmeber you saying it was sa cost effective and that was the point I was trying to make.

I never said IP was as cost effective. Only more capable-- which is why it costs more.

I can not speak for Pelco and granted the IP cam has the ability of having more software on it than your standard Analogue cam but the difference is that the software is in the cam not aT the dvr and that is the main difference...to answer your question though. I recently upgraded all my Bosch Cams to the latest firmware for several reasons and yes one of them had a lot to do with bandwidth...not that it is a concern to a HARD WIRED SYSTEM you do not need to adjust bandwidth for a hard wired system!!!! it was for a feature that reads each frame and looks for the frame with the least noise and then sends the approriate frame reducing the need for noisy recordings...but once agin, the DVR can have the features you are talking about and there is no concern here because I do not have to reduce the bandwidth in the first place for DVR and it can be adjusted at the DVR.

Bandwidth isn't a concern? So you don't record anything at all-- or are you pulling in 2FPS at full resolution? I know that I can build a PC Based NVR that has more storage for much less money and record WAY more video. Most of us here are recording under 10FPS anyhow, I don't see how 1Mbit of bandwidth @ D1/10 FPS is going to come close to bogging down any network-- even a 10/100 base.

I am sorry but I think it is..I agree on the sabotage point but my DVR and your NVR are both PC's however my DVR can be a standalone, they both can crash and if they both crash you do loose all cameras, to say you only can loose one camera is wrong...if your NVR crashes (oooh hang on, you have prolly never seen Windows crash either ) then you are in the same boat, granted yours MAY not be working as hard as your average DVR so there can be less risk but the DVR will operate if the network goes down and hardware compression alleviates the load anyhow.

An NVR can't be standalone? I've seen plenty of Windows bases systems crash. I haven't seen too many 2003 Server boxes crash though, certainly not more than 1 in 3 years-- of course that one that crashed was because the power supply died... Not only that, but since I can use any high-end hardware I want when I build NVR servers, I can make them much more powerful than most custom built DVR's and leaps and bounds over pre-assembled DVR's. Our dual Xenon NVR's for example are at about 4% processor utilization (hardware compression is done before it even gets to the NVR) with 50 cams on each. FYI- Network utilization is 1%.

No it would not be lost, there are things like Geovisions Control room software that can always be streaming, much like your IP setup, you can argue all you want but DVR will give you two points of redundancy, hard wired and ethernet, you only have one with IP and that can still be used by DVR ...Ethernet, if there was an accident your IP cam would also be affected surely?

An NVR is already your control room software, redundacy is not needed as all the video is stored in a safe place on a Raid setup. You don't have to be affraid of technology, it is supposed to make your life easier-- and no the camera would not be hurt-- remember the part about IP enabling a pelco ex-site explosion-proof cam?...

Then you are lucky because it is an issue with most products, please list the product you use and the brands it also supports especially in H264 and MPEG4 as you suggested it can do, I would like to show you some IP cams that will not work on your system, after that can you please show me an Analogue cam that will not work on mine!

Exactly how is it an issue with most products? Please explain? If you mean some NVR packages only support certain cameras, that's true. Just like some DVR's are proprietary in what they'll control. It all depends on what you buy. All I'm going to say is we use expensive NVR software and expensive cameras, and they work fantastically together.

Actually yes I can with most DVR's I have to say it is harder with Standalone's but my DVR can be a PC so anything you can do it can do, it just takes either third party software or the some software that is designed fro the DVR, Geovision (One of the cheapoest PC DVR's) has this facility too I think in its backup scheduling, regardless intelligent SAN box's can do it as well..I do not agree with this point but grant you that not using third party and having it as part of your software is intelligent but some of the DVR's I use do it anyhow!

Interesting to know, but certainly the functionality-- on the rare case it is integrated with the DVR-- is limited compared to the flexibility of multiple archiving times for network balancing, etc. of the NVR. (and yes, you DVR guys have to worry about network balancing if you are backing up to a NAS or SAN).

Although this thread is argumentative, I think you should keep it open, people will learn from it, I personally see IP as the major way forward and we will ALL be using it very shortly, I just hate that in order to sell a more expensive products, Myths are made up to justify costs....the three things remain for me!

 

1/ There is very little that an IP cam can do that is that important other than Resolution.

2/ Networks do fail and having two points of redundancy is ALWAYS better than one.

3/ Once the network cams have storage (Flash Storage) onboard that is large enough and affordable enough they will surpass DVR's because of the redundancy...but wont they then be a DVR with a built in camera?

I make it a point to say that I don't SELL anything that I buy. My company sells the remote monitoring capability and service that only IP can deliver. We probably monitor more remote customer surveillance feeds than any other privately held corporation on the West Coast. Sure customers can have an IP enabled DVR for us to monitor from our command center, but that is one more point of failure for us and another issue to worry about from an integration standpoint. IP is simply easier to install, configure and maintain remotely than analog. Period.

Redundancy is important, and if you are doing an IP based CCTV system, you must build it into your system much like an analog installer would. Both are surveillance systems and both should be installed correctly.

Some of the IP cameras we use do have onboard storage, others have an inline DVR that records and digitizes for IP. Either way, we don't use them-- nor in 4 years of operation have we ever needed one, but never say never- they say.

[edit by mod - fixed quote tags]

I disagree again, there are still Display, Data Bandwidth and even storing the compressed images to consider, Unlimited is never likely, this is a myth...I have designed many IP systems and I have ahd to include several NVR's amd Several NVW's becasue there is indeed a limit to what can be processed, viewed, stored and transfered on one machine....the product I used ahd the unlimited tag..but there is indeed a limit.

Perhaps there is a limit, but the software we use is a distributed system that uses a master/slave setup to allow for "unlimited" control a single NVR server or Multiple NVR servers. As far as I know, even if you network ethernet capable DVR's you cannot manage them all from one master Server, in one interface.

I could prove my argument by way of a poll but there is no point..it is ludicrous to suggest networks do not fail ever, that is pure rubbish and if you are indeed working in the IT industry as possibly a netwrok admin, you must have had a very boring job if you never had to fix anything..I am sure there are statistics, but I cant be arsed finding them...i think others have and you must just have been lucky!

Perhaps I am lucky, or perhaps its good planning and preventative maintenance...

Ummm not all ptz cameras require coms cables!! the ones i use can be controlled up the Coax!

 

Your phone may be able to do that resolution and I dont recall arguing about resolution, but what IP sales people talk about is using IP cams on an existing network to save money...well you HAVE to lower the resolution with IP, but you dont HAVE to with a DVR, the bandwidth does not come into play with a hard wired DVR...keep in mind IP has to be compressed first, so you have to record at the bandwidth available..this is not the case for DVR.

Not a lot of PTZ cameras can do up the Coax for comm. At least not a lot of the higher spec cameras. None of the analog cameras I've dealt with have that capability.

We have only done a couple of existing network installs, and none have had to require reducing camera quality for integration. However, I do agree that a separate network is the most reliable way to go for a large IP setup, that's not a point of arguement. If you are going to cable for analog cameras, you are technically doing the same thing as installing a new network-- it's just a coax network. How is that any different then installing cabling for new IP network?

Wow...you use a router per camera..thats gotta be expensive and its not like the cams arent expensive in the first place..sheesh 32 wireless routers, changing to gigabit lan, changing network equipment and all network cards....before even starting with cameras...cant see how that is so much cheaper sorry!

Its not cheaper, it's better and more organized due to the lack of wiring. Better usually doesn't cost less.

Ummm yes it does!!!

Please explain. Can I firmware flash a Pelco and have it take less bandwidth without image quality loss? Or am I just going to get some new window blanking options?

Ummm doesnt the same thing happen if your NVR stops working..ok i admit you can haev redundancy but so can you with DVR, this is a silly point and I am surprised you made it considering that a network failure makes your system redundant, unplugging one netwrok cable at the NVR kills all cameras..not just one!!!

This is not apples to apples. I am talking about a hardware failure, and you are talking about sabotage. You can take measures to prevent sabotage, you cannot take measures to ensure that electronics don't die.

nope heaps of ways..I cuold even put it into a dvr on the rig and use the same connection you would, only difference is that if that link every broke...I WOULD STILL BE RECORDING...DVR makes it an ethernet connection and to be honest HOW OFTEN aare you installing on OIL RIGS..be realistic here!

We actually have an outstanding bid to an oil-rich country that has 8 off-shore rigs they want watched.... If you are talking about what ifs: People can tamper with recordings (the people you are watching) and lets also remember that if there is an accident on the rig, all the footage would be lost.

I am well versed with the use of webservers encoders and decoders and I dont beleive I ever eluded to them not existing however it is EASIER to pick any cam you want rather than having to DEVELOP SOFTWARE for the one you want!

But didn't I just say you don't have to with analog integration via videoserver? If you are talking about an IP camera to an NVR, then yes- limitations do exist, but very few. I haven't found a new IP camera that I wanted to use that my NVR doesn't support.

Most DVR's these days actually can record to a network drive, SAN or NAS so I do not get your point, I have been mapping even standalone DVR's to SANS and NAS for some time, there is no difference, a good DVR can do D1 so I fail to see your point....the argument you should have made is that you can send even larger resolutions, the point is ONLY if you have the bandwidth.

Ok... so you are telling me that a DVR is as easy to backup to a SAN or NAS as a PC? Can you set your DVR to keep XX amount of days and then automatically remove the oldest stored video every day to keep storage consistant? If you can, I'd like to see that DVR. But yes, IP can send at much higher resolutions-- this does take bandwidth, but how much bandwidth do you really think it takes? A full resolution H.263 cam can stream @ 10 FPS with only 1Mbit of bandwidth. On a dedicated Gigabit LAN (with some overhead) you could easily do 700+ cameras. Doesn't seem like much of a limitation to me.

I didn't make the other statments, so I won't comment on them. However, stating that an IP installation is limited by bandwidth is absurd. Just as with an Analog/DVR installation that is done right, an IP/NVR installation that is done right will work great. Sure you have to take other things in to consideration with an IP system, but you can forget some of the other things having to do with Analog/DVR setups.

Firefox is a great program, no doubt about it. As a former web developer, I know that it has great functionality to test code validity. The reason some stuff only works in IE is because it is OS integrated and has a lot of executing capability and permissions-- also the reason why it is much less secure and prone to executing malicious programs.

I think that I fall somewhere right in the middle of pro dvr and pro nvr.

About the time I always think that one way of setting up systems is the way to go is when I learn a hard lesson. One thing we all have to remember is that its not about us. (those of use who are actually not end users). Its about the person in front of you wanting A systems. Not a particular system Its about what fits their specific needs. and we cant say that one particular system is better than the others as every application is different. So in saying that why cant you guys see that both of you guys are right. In certain applicaitions one type of system is better than another. Because what it all really boiles down to is providing the best possible system that fits the customers needs for the least amount of money. You can design the best system but if they cant afford it then you loose. You can also design a system that is much more affordable but not what they need then we all loose.

I agree completely. Let's just remember that to each their own. I think the Analog vs. IP debate is much like the people going back and forth on Windows vs. Linux-- each have their own place and both have a devoted following.

I find this an idiotic statement, if a person wants to disable a security system they most certainly can, what I was trying to say originally is that you can have a DVR hard wired and still use it on the network, however the hard wired part is not as likely to have a problem becasue it is indeed hard wired and not succeptable to a netwrok crash, I find it insulting to my intelligence if you are going to pretend that a network will never crash as it is highly possible at some point and unrealistic to assume it will never happen.

What is it with DVR people and their fear of Network crashes? Listen I've been in IT for 9 years and I have yet to have a network crash at any of the places I've worked at. Nor has my company had a network crash in the 4 years we've been in business. You have as much chance of DVR equipment dieing as you do a network crashing for that matter anyway, so I don't see what your arguement is here.

 

Once again I disagree, I was talking about the actual camera device and NVR software compared to an analogue camera and a DVR unit, I will admit though that IF and I do say "IF" you can use an existing network then it is obviously cheaper but it is RARE that you can and achieve full resolution and limited compression of numerous cameras, there is also a point that must be considered....Imagine doing a shopping centre...well there would be hundreds of cameras, the labour alone to run hundreds of cables is extreemly expensive and having one fibre ring can realy reap savings benefits so I was wrong when discussing IP with large numbers of cameras.

If you were doing full resolution with limited compression, then you would be correct in stating it would be difficult to integrate any existing network for the job (unless it's a gigabit lan with multiple subnets and switches)-- and I admit Fiber is a great addition to wired installations. I was talking about a wireless job however and with that, you would only have to have power. But even I, an IP and wireless proponet can freely state that both have their place, and muliple indoor cameras with tons of HVAC and electrical interference is not one of them.

 

To clarify, the Network IP cam consisits of a the same things found in a DVR the only difference is that they are in the camera...the dvr does the compression or the camera does there is no real difference except the ones that you rightly pointed out...larger resolution, less processing load and the ability to use PTZ through ethernet..but that can be achieved in DVR's as well...however transporting the signal a long way is easier with IP cams.

I understand that. There is also the fact of easier installation to consider, which is at times paramount for rather large installation. Take an IP PTZ camera: No comm cables to run or terminate for movement. Obviously the fewer connections, the easier to test, troubleshoot and install. Also if you take into account that the camera on my cell phone has over 4 times the resolution of an analog camera, there are also resolution issues to think of.

 

I do not recall ever saying they could not be! A simple webserver can be used on any video feed (almost any).

I understand that, was simply pointing out that analog technologies are available for IP as well.

 

This is true, but most of the time that wiring is in the roof and a lot harder to get at than a data port...my point is not about the fallability of cutting wires because it affects both...my point is that a network failure or one bad hub etc can stop the recording, ...by making it ONLY IP you remove the redundancy or hard wired cables and you casue the system to haev many more parts (hubs,switches etc) and therefore more risk of failure

There is hardly any wiring with Wireless, which is what I was referring to. But again, I will state that DVR's are appliances as well, which are just as prone to failure as IP appliances. The only difference is that you can have redundant appliances for automatic failover with IP.

 

I certainly hope so...but in order to do so I would have to be at the back of the DVR or on a ladder, Once again, if you wish to bring down a CCTV system then both are fallable and I was not saying you could not do it to a DVR system, I was just pointing out that they are both easy to tamper with.

True, it is up to the company who is installing to protect their equipment every bit as much as they are protecting the customer- if not then both IP and Analog systems are equally prone to tampering.

 

Perhaps "Crash" is a better term then...for gods sake if you have never seen a netwrok crash then i would find it hard to beleive you have seen many networks or ever worked for business that has one!

Again, I have been in IT for 9 years. Every company I have worked for has trained technicians with years of experience in proactive network reliability measures. I can honestly say that I have experienced zero network failures/crashes.

 

This is true but......if your pipe is only so big, then you QOS your butt off and i am sure it will be MORE stable but will you have the space to get the reult in resolution and compression, the fact is if sharing a network and especially an older one, the chances of you streaming many cameras onto their network at full resolution would require you to QOS until their normal other network needs had no room or visa versa, too little room for the video...video = bandwidth!

I agree, QOS only goes so far. But if you're using QOS enabled hardware on a network... it is not going to be an "older" network. Gigabit Lan equipment is not that expensive anymore, and even businesses not doing IP CCTV would be wise to upgrade for the minimal amount of money it costs to do so. What a Gigabit Lan and QOS hardware allows you to do is network share, obviously if you have a large office infrastructure or large IP CCTV system, you would want to seperate the two.

 

I wouldn't !!!!!! I would rather have one long run...for the simple reason that it has less points of weakness and I might add that if you were mounting a camera 3 feet from a router are you only ever going to put cams in network rooms, becasue I would assume most cameras would be more than three feet from the nearest router!

All of our cameras are less than 3 feet from a router. Why you ask? Because they are wireless-- which is what I was referring to. We don't like miles of wire around here.

 

You are a long way off here: A/ All the cameras I use can be firmware upgraded up the Coax Cable and this has been true for quite some time.

B/ Upgrading a webserver will not change the compression chip inside it (I could be wrong here) C/ Think about this...if you had two 16 cam Geovision DVR's and a new compression chip was invented..chances are you could remove two Geo cards and presto all 32 cams now record in the new compression because of the new chips on the cards..to do this for IP cams means changing 32 expensive cameras a massive difference in prices.

What benefit do you get from flashing firmware on an analog camera? Does it have a built in computer? I understand this has been possible for quite some time, but doing so doesn't unlock any features. I know that Axis products and Sony products have flashes that have added new codec's to the products. That's a fact, because I've done it tons of times. I wouldn't know about a "compression chip" on a DVR as we don't use them, but one could certainly assume that flashing the DVR's software could allow for different features and camera support. You must also consider that if your DVR dies, you lose all connections to those 32 cameras. If you lose 1 of your 32 IP cameras-- well you get the point.

 

Agreed but why buy two compenents when you only need one, you have to admit there is not the same range of cameras for IP that there are for analogue.

Well, if you are using Pelco Exsite Equipment on an oil rig 15 miles offshore, and it needs to make it back to land: Wireless! Or if you prefer, you can run a fiber line on the ocean floor. Also, how long has analog been around, and how long has IP been around? Video servers were invented to take advantage of the existing analog market to begin converting it to IP, until more IP cameras are available.

 

I agree with you, but ANY analogue cam can work on a DVR system and not EVERY IP cam can work on a NVR, try mixing a few MPEG varieties in and find this out...I will admit that JPEG is more standardised

Actually ANY analog cam will work on an NVR as well via a supported video server. Bending the rules a bit you say? The same can be said about using a transcoder to modify an IP cam to analog for use to a DVR. It's true not every camera is supported by every NVR (although our NVR supports nearly 100 different models). However, since hardware support is only a matter of SDK integration, every camera is capable of being supported.

 

I agree about the streaming in dual codecs etc...about the compressions, I tend to disagree, they are at equal stages because the companies developing them are doing it for both markets, anything inside an IP cam can be replicated into the DVR? I must say thugh that there is an advantage to being able to do massive resolutions (if you have the bandwidth) that a DVR can not handle due to PCI bus.

DVR's do have benifits, but most of the people I know who use them are so limited by the DVR's available disk space, you cannot take advantage of the massive resolutions they offer. With our NVR, we actually back up to a SAN and can from that point have all of our video stored (for 30+ days) in full D1 resolution. I don't know what an DVR is capable of as far as resolution, but I was under the impression that D1 was about as good as it gets for analog.

 

A network admin should not have to remedy a fualty security system and very few companies here have them "on staff" they tend to contract them in, I assume this may be different in other countries.

A network admin does not have to remedy a faulty security system, but they should be there to make sure all the hardware, etc. is running smooth. If you do IP CCTV, then it makes sense to have one on staff.

You make good points too, possibly why the 2 types of systems are both in existance today is because they both have their place-- not only that, but they are both the same type of setup with processing done of different sides of the system. We just do IP because we've done both, and IP is easier-- especially wireless.

Wirelesseye, you normally dont make me cough, but when you said your nvr can support unlimited cameras, well, I did.....

 

Unlimited cameras? Even the worlds best systems, all networked together cannot support that.. Its a stupid statement, typical of what IP people come out with.......

A stupid statement? Please don't post if you haven't done your homework. If you don't believe me try here: http://www.d3data.com

While no one can substantiate an "unlimited camera" claim, certainly well-ported software does not have any physical limitations like: The number of BNC connectors you have.

Sorry to make you cough.

Im glad you have enough business that you can be picky .. most of us cannot though.

 

Yep, and the Plasma quality hasn't got any better

Ever hear of 1080p resolution? Primo picture for Blue Ray and HD DVD.

I wouldn't install any CCTV system that was $500. I wouldn't install anything that's less than $2,00 for that matter. There's simply no money in it, and using equipment that is inexpensive generally yeilds unfavorable results. Not only that, but we don't do residential because there is little or no profit margin like there is for commercial and industrial. Also, since we don't sell hardware, we sell service, we keep the equipment and must warranty it for the life of the contract. I don't want to have to replace cheap equipment that has a lot MTBF.

Anyhow, DVR's do have their place, albeit a shrinking place. You must at least admit that. Anyone who has been going to security shows for the past 4 years has seen the trend of DVR booths getting fewer and fewer.

It is important that we discuss what a DVR really is-- it is a computer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. Now lets discuss what an NVR is-- it is a compuer with hard drives in it, that uses software to do a job. The only difference is the NVR can use any software you want it to, and you can upgrade it more readily. True, DVR's can be upgraded as well, but not as easy as an NVR as the DVR is limited by it's internal software and hardware setup. Our NVR can support UNLIMITED cameras. As far as I know, that isn't even possible with a DVR.

For what it's worth, I know there will always be DVR's. However there will be fewer as time goes on, and that's not because analog cameras aren't great. It's because just like with 50" plasma tv's started off at $15,000, they are now < $2,000 and the same is happening in IP.

1/ I agree. However high frequency wireless is difficult if not impossible to jam, and impossilbe to cut wiring on.

2/ Wireless is cheaper if there is trenching and conduit isn't free either...

6/ We have a protected Network room. Unless an employee cuts the IT guys eyeball out to get past the scanner, no one is getting in.

9/ I am talking about wireless.

10/ True- But you generally cannot update their technology (for example sony camera flashes can allow for new codecs and features).

13/ DVR's for security are still alive and kicking, but let's be honest, they are a dieing breed. They are generally proprietary and typically limited in expansion. NVR's on the other hand can use numerous software packages and since they are running on PC's that are much more upgradeable than a DVR based system, you aren't stuck in a couple of years when more cameras are needed, etc.

14/ If it is a small business or a luxury home, then the network would be bare bones anyhow.

Believe it or not, we are starting to have some clients that RFQ'ing "sold systems" that require DVR's. However, we have built and maintained a very successful CCTV business and have not used a single DVR while doing it. What that allows us to do is change with the times-- without changing all of our hardware.

1/ Unless someone has wire cutters.

2/ Only if you don't have to trench more than 3 feet.

3/ Not sure what you mean here.

4/ Any anolog camera can be IP adapted.

5/ When someone cuts your wiring the recoding stops too.

6/ Have you ever unplugged a BNC cable?

7/ Never actually seen a network "die".

8/ QOS networking allows you to use equipment on any existing network without effecting the existing network.

9/ I would rather have 3 feet of Cat5 going into a router than hundreds of feet of RG-59 into a DVR.

10/ Most IP cameras have firmware flashes that make them relatively future-proof. You cannot flash an anolog camera. At the same time, when you IP enable an analog camera, you can easily upgrade the device that IP enables it.

11/ All you have to do is get an Ex-site from Pelco (or anyone for that matter) and hook a video server up to it.

12/ We have numerous IP brands, all running on the same system and flawlessly.

13/ DVR's are old school. The latest compression technologies are being implemented faster in the IP arena than in "retrofitted" DVR's. Our NVR can bring in full resolution MJPEG, MPEG-4 and H.264 and then stream it to remote clients in any resolution and/or codec. I don't know of any DVR's that can do that.

14/ Not if you have a Network Admin on staff.

Runs like a champ for me.... I really like the tabbed interface (stolen from Opera of course) and the cleaner look. Haven't notice it being slower, although it's probably optimized for the new release of Vista rather than XP.

What I'm talking about is using the Pano with a video server so that it can be IP. The NVR controls the guard tour via the video server. But there would be a "disconnect" between the analog auto tracking feature and the guard tour running on the video server and the NVR, correct?